Pynchon is not a genius yet

[Dave Monroe]

Okay, the usual protestations here ...

--- Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> wrote:

> We cannot conceive our existence? Anyone read that
> Harold Bloom book on Shakespeare?

Well, I read the "Introduction," and a few of the
various chapters that I figured would be either of
particular importance (e.g., Hamlet) or otherwise of
interest (er, Titus Andronicus).  Bloom's usual
protestations against, well, virtually everything else
written on literature these days aside, seem'd
nonetheless to be in roughly the same ballpark as yr
New Historicist types (Stephen Greenblatt et al.) who
also argue for the Shakespearean inscription of modern
subjectivity.  The striking difference is Bloom's
unabashed Bardolatry ...
 
> Now here I am traditional. To me. the works of
> Shakespeare, Dante, Lao Tzu, Homer, Milton,
> Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Mozart,
> Chaucer, and other great geniuses, transcend the
> vicissitudes of time and circumstance. And so it is
> not an exaggeration to claim that the continuous
> influence of these "texts" has contributed to the
> common bonds of our humanity.

"Traditional" at (yet) this point in "the"
"Tradition," perhaps, but, speaking of "vicissitudes,"
do take note of reception history here.  The examples
of Aristotle, and, I believe, Milton demonstrate a
certain slippage in and out of "tradition" here, no? 
The review Doug posted of Scott L. Montgomery's
Science in Translation recently makes some relevant
points here as well, albeit in a different
disciplinary context ...

http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=7155995917734

A "tradition" is something that is constantly
negotiated and renegotiated, and is perhaps only
nominally "continuous," the rubric (naming that)
"tradition" often, perhaps always, having certain
disciplinary, social, cultural, political,
ideological, whatever investments, affiliations,
interests.  Which is acknowledge to some extent here
...
 
> Bound together each generation is indebted to the
> great works (yes, I believe there are great works,
> even a hierarchy of texts and readings of those
> texts) that precede them and inspired to proceed in
> producing great "texts" of their own which can
> enkindle the imagination of their contemporaries and
> future generations and keep the Promethean torch
> ablaze. 

Placing my right hand over my heart here, chest
swelling with pride, sorry, seem to have gotten
something in my eye ...
 
> In our age the torch burns brightly, for we enjoy
> unprecedented access to numerous cultural 
> heritages, which are rendered accessible by
> persistent advances in scholarship, translations
> of foreign texts, and new technologies. Though at
> times clouded by the veneer of academic debate, mass
> media sound bite prognostication, politics, global
> economic exploitation, and plastic packaged fast
> food cultural exchange the foundations of pluralism
> and cultural cross-fertilization are deeply set in
> the great works of the past. Accepting this premise 
> we can surmise that future generations will gain
even
> greater insights into our cultural heritage. It
seems
> certain that they will develop even more
> sophisticated approaches to the great works

'Zat vs. "the veneer of academic debate"?  Hm ...

> and inspired by them will, in turn produce great
> works of genius that will inspire succeeding
> generations.

Standing on the shoulders of giants?  "Strong" texts,
authors, even, overcoming their "strong" predecessors
in that Bloomian Chain of Being?  Or maybe not. 
"Great works" have been, can be, do and will be
devalued, lost, forgotten.  Though traces may persist
...

> As I have stated in previous posts, I believe the
> work of contemporary hermeneutics is in part to
> gather the great resources of our cultural heritage
> and inspire new possibilities of thought,
expression,  > and action. Now, I do not believe that
there is
> anything sacred in any of the great works

You do not believe this, or you do not believe you
believe this?  There is a difference there ...

> or in any particular philosophical or religious
> system, which renders them impervious to
> reinterpretation. However, I believe it is asinine 
> to think that one can refute or even deconstruct any
> of the great texts. 

At least you don't equate "refute" with "deconstruct"
here, hardly the same thing, of course.  Though I'd
note that, in the latter case, Derrida has done an
admirable job "deconstructing" such "great" texts as
Plato's Phaedrus, Rousseau's Confessions, Heidegger's
Being and Time, and so forth ...

> As I stated previously, whatever the function of
> criticism of contemporary works, it is no longer its
> role to tell Chaucer, for example, that the Wife of
> Bath is too burdened with ironies.

Interesting question here.  Does, should, can
criticism "proceed" (chronlogially, whatever) as
science allegedly does, "progress" rendering obsolete
what came before it?  This is implied here, taken
issue with earlier ...
 
> Mozart has been called the musical genius of a
> millennium. Such a statement goes well beyond
> personal listening preferences

Insofar as it goes beyond the "listening preferences"
of any given person, any giver listener ...

> it rather, purports to define human accomplishments
> according to several historical criteria.

And perhaps in neglect to ignorance of others?

> We can not apply these criteria to our >
contemporaries, for we lack not only the necessary
> distance from the individual but also the ability to
> define such accomplishments as they are created in
> our midst.

What is the context of context here?  How to define,
delineate, delimit, whatever "our," "contemporaries,"
"necessary," "distance," "individual," "ability,"
"define," "such," "accomplishments," "midst"?  And so
forth.  Where does "our" "moment" begin and end,
"within" which "we" may "define" "genius"?  Again,
vicissitudes ...
 
> Pynchon is not a genius yet.

But all duly noted and recorded, I'm assuming.  Gotta
run, thanks ...


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/